Jack Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind congratulations, and I congratulate him on becoming the shadow Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and shadow Secretary of State for Justice, which covers an important policy area.
	To begin on an ecumenical note, I regard even an hour of questions to be too little for this Department, and for practice for the Opposition. I have already made strong recommendations on the matter to the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House as we recognise that half an hour is not long enough, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that, too.
	On the hon. Gentleman's next question, I have been reading the  West Sussex County Times, which reports him as saying that, so far as he is concerned, there will be a reduction in party political slanging matches. I note the standard that he has set on that.
	Citizens' juries do not, and cannot, work in the same way as juries in real courts; they have to be collaborative. Citizens' juries have been used in my constituency, and the idea behind them is to draw out people's views, not as focus groups, but through a collaborative, discursive approach. They often arrive at interesting conclusions, and the purpose in having them is to take account of what they say.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Lord High Chancellor for his answer and welcome him to his post. Has not the decision to enshrine in law the declaration of human rights proved to be an own goal in that it has limited the power of Government to uphold the rights and security of the people of this country? Is not the underlying problem the fact that rights are not absolutes but need to be balanced against each other, which requires political judgment and common sense, and that that is best left not to lawyers but to Parliament, which developed those human rights in the first place?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, we left open as a matter for the courts the definition of a public authority to whom the Act would apply. I am currently digesting the results of the decision by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, and I will consult my hon. Friend and his Committee about the best way forward.

Jack Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that we want a debate on whether we should build on, not detract from, the European convention on human rights and what is in the Human Rights Act 1998. We have to get across, and the Opposition make a fair point, that the Act and the rights themselves have to be balanced by obligations, duties and responsibilities. That is an important part of the debate that my right hon. Friend has now launched.

Michael Wills: I recognise entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. We are proud to have brought in the freedom of information legislation, which is making a substantial and significant contribution to democracy in this country. We are constantly reviewing the way that it works, and I am sure that he and I will have further exchanges on that in the future.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has taken a major interest in Darfur, and he will know that the International Development Secretary is in Darfur at the moment looking at the situation on the ground. As a result of the conflict in Darfur, 200,000 people have died. There are 2 million people who are homeless and displaced as a result of it, and 4 million people who would starve but for food aid.
	It is urgent that the international community reaches an agreement on the appropriate response. We are sponsoring a United Nations resolution to bring an African Union and UN force into the region as quickly as possible. I believe that, even before that force arrives, there should be a cessation of violence on the ground, and the President has a responsibility for making that happen. We would then be prepared to give emergency economic aid so that the people of this area are given the chance of a better livelihood, but we are prepared to take further sanctions against the Government and people in that regime if they do not cease the violence, stop the militias and make sure that people have a decent living standard in a region that for too long has suffered from poverty, famine and war.

Henry Bellingham: Many of my constituents will be somewhat concerned about the Prime Minister's equivocal remarks about early release, which will probably now become a permanent feature of our criminal justice system. Was Harry Fletcher correct to point out that senior probation officers were overruled on early release decisions? Who should one trust most: loyal, hard-working probation officers and servants of the Crown or Ministers obsessed with spin?

Peter Hain: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on today's Green Paper, "In work, better off: next steps to full employment". Ten years of progress under this Government have transformed work and opportunity in Britain. We have seen the longest and most sustained period of economic growth for over 200 years, the fastest falling child poverty in Europe and the highest employment in our country's history.
	Today, the achievement of full employment and the eradication of child poverty are seen no longer as simply aspirational rallying calls, but as real targets that people expect to be delivered in our generation. But to achieve them, especially at a time when the global forces of economic and demographic change present new and ever greater challenges for our economy and labour market, will require a step change in our reforms.
	We must reignite the jobs crusade that started in 1997 and renew the partnership between Government, employers and individuals by focusing now on those who remain furthest from the labour market and on those whose potential is untapped—on the 3 million people of working age who have been on benefit for over a year, many on incapacity benefits; on lone parents and ethnic minority groups still without the right support to work; on 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training; and on those remaining pockets of poverty and worklessness concentrated in some of our major cities, yet often close to thriving labour markets and great prosperity.
	I said that we needed a step change to tackle these entrenched problems and today's Green Paper delivers it, based as it is on values and principles that go back to Beveridge and Atlee, and on to our new deal. I refer to the belief in equality and opportunity and in rights and responsibilities; to the principle of work for those who can and support for those who cannot; to the idea of working in partnership with employers; and to the belief that an active, progressive welfare system should provide people with the skills that employers need to fill some of the 600,000 vacancies that come up in our labour market each month.
	The reforms will build on our progress with the national roll-out of pathways to work. They will see the development of support that is ever more personalised and responsive to the needs of individuals. They will focus on job retention and progression, not just on job entry. They will devolve power to local areas by incentivising local solutions and making the best possible use of expertise across the public, private and voluntary sectors.
	We propose, first and foremost, a renewed partnership with employers to ensure that those on welfare applying for jobs have both the skills and the work attitudes that employers need, underpinned by a new jobs pledge aimed at finding opportunities for 250,000 people currently on benefit. Building on the cutting-edge local employment partnerships announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Budget earlier this year, major employers—in both the public and private sectors—have given a commitment to offer guaranteed job interviews for people who have been on benefit and who are ready and prepared to work. Employers will ensure that such people can compete more effectively for vacancies and have the support then to progress within the workplace, adding to last month's employer skills pledge in which 150 leading employers made a public and voluntary commitment to train all their staff to level 2 in the workplace. This will be a two-way process, however, and through the new local employment partnerships, individuals on benefit will be expected to do all that they can to help themselves prepare for work.
	Our second area of reform will be to introduce a more personalised, flexible and responsive new deal, with a more integrated approach to skills and wider support for the family, but matched by new responsibilities for jobseekers to do all that they can to help themselves. Those facing particularly severe barriers to work will now get fast-tracked help, while others who have a history of long-term benefit dependency could face tougher responsibilities from the start of their claim. There will be an earlier and more focused assessment of the skills needs of those who are out of work, to inform the development of a back-to-work plan. Agreed activities will be mandatory, however, with clear sanctions for failure to comply.
	Eradicating child poverty lies at the heart of the Green Paper. Following the recommendations of Lisa Harker's report last year, we are already changing Jobcentre Plus systems and targets to ensure that the delivery of our employment programmes is more family-focused. We are introducing mandatory work-focused interviews every six months for partners of jobseeker's allowance recipients with children. As with lone parents, work offers a powerful route out of poverty for many of those families.
	For lone parents, we will introduce a new social contract which promotes the value of work as the best route to tackle child poverty. We know that the children of lone parents in work are more than five times more likely to be in poverty than the children of lone parents in full-time employment, and that they are three times more likely to be in poverty than the children of lone parents in part-time work. Given our record investment in improving the quality and supply of child care, together with measures to ensure that work pays, lone parents will be expected to make an eventual move into the labour market in return for new and more personalised support.
	From October next year, lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 and over will no longer be entitled to income support simply because they are a lone parent. Instead, supported by the new job opportunities made available by the local employment partnerships, they will be eligible to claim jobseeker's allowance, on which they would be expected to look for suitable work in return for personalised help and support. Because we are serious about tackling child poverty, we intend that the relevant age be reduced further to seven from October 2010, backed up by the local availability of high-quality wrap-around child care.
	Finally, building on the Freud report, this Green Paper makes greater use of expertise across the private, public and voluntary sectors at both national and local level. Private and voluntary sector providers already play a crucial role in delivering programmes, such as employment zones and the new deal, and we intend to build on that. After 12 months on jobseeker's allowance, or in some cases probably even sooner, we will move customers to a specialist return-to-work provider, who will offer an intensive outcome-focused service, funded on the basis of results; we will push forward with a City strategy, offering local consortiums of providers new funding and flexibilities in return for outcome-based payments; and we will pilot an approach where providers who are successful in moving people into sustained employment are rewarded with increased funds to invest in further activity.
	The publication of our proposals today will start a 15-week consultation process. We encourage contributions from both sides of the House and from all those who share our commitment to delivering full employment in Britain. The contrast with 1997 could not be greater: then, record unemployment and the worst child poverty in Europe; today, 2.6 million more people in jobs, more women, more lone parents and more disabled people in work than ever before, and already 600,000 children lifted out of poverty. We must now rise further to the challenge of going further.
	The Green Paper lays the foundation for the eradication of child poverty; it builds on the progress that we have made in extending the right to work to all; and in reaching out to the hardest to help, it aims to offer true social mobility and social justice for every individual. I commend it to the House.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for observing the usual courtesies in providing me with an advance copy of the statement. What a shame it is, though, that he did not observe the courtesies that were promised to the House when the new Prime Minister took over less than three weeks ago. We were told then that major policy announcements would be made in the House and not the media, as you have so often demanded, Mr. Speaker, so let me start by asking the Secretary of State why details of the statement were on BBC breakfast television this morning. Is this just a one-man rebellion by the Secretary of State against his new leader, or is it just that the promises made by our new Prime Minister have a shelf-life of only a fortnight?
	The statement contains much that all of us can agree on. That is hardly surprising, as parts of it, such as the changed approach for lone parents, are things that we have already argued for—but with this Government, nothing is ever quite what it seems. For a start, there is a distinct feeling of déjà vu in all of this. This is the Government's 11th announcement in 10 years about getting people off benefits and back into work. The last Green Paper was published less than 18 months ago. At that time, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), was scathing about the Government's record. She said:
	"I think that the whole system has left people languishing on benefit... We need to provide the infrastructure of support that helps people break down their barriers and enables them to exercise their rights. So far we have done sweet nothing."
	Well, it is now a little over a year later, and what has happened? I think that the House would agree, to judge from today's employment statistics, that the answer is still sweet nothing.
	The number of single parents stuck on benefits is barely changed on a year ago. According to the Secretary of State's own figures, 7.93 million people of working age in this country are economically inactive, and that figure is rising, as is youth unemployment. The Government's response is to publish yet another Green Paper—another set of headlines to try to reassure people that Ministers are actually trying to do something, while in the real world too many people are being left behind in our society.
	Last year, the Government asked David Freud, chief executive of the Portland Trust, to make recommendations about how to tackle the blight of economic inactivity in this country. His report sets out a radical agenda for change in the way that we help people off benefits and into work. The last Secretary of State said of the report, back in March:
	"David Freud's report presents a compelling case for future reform."
	We agree with him, but the new Prime Minister clearly does not. He gave David Freud short shrift when they met. In April, a leaked letter from the then Chief Secretary said:
	"As the chancellor made clear, it is not possible to develop or pilot a new funding model in the immediate future".
	So much for the Government making real use of external advice, or the former Chancellor's big tent. It is obvious that while the Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get in external advice to help him with public relations, he clearly has absolutely no intention of actually using that advice. Let me ask the Secretary of State why the Prime Minister has ordered so much of the Freud report to be watered down. How much extra funding does he really have to implement these changes?
	The truth is that after 10 years of broken promises on welfare reform, we still have more than 750,000 lone parents on benefits. We have far more—16 per cent. more—young people who are not in education, employment or training than in 1997, despite all the billions of pounds that the Government have spent on the new deal. Today's figures show that youth unemployment is getting worse. Despite years of promises, we still have more people on incapacity benefit than in 1997. The Secretary of State talked about falling child poverty, but I put it to him that his Department's statistics show that the figures for child poverty in the UK have been rising over the past year.
	Neither this Government nor this Prime Minister have shown any sign of being able to get to grips with these problems. Their solution is always to launch yet another consultation, yet another Green Paper, yet more legislation and yet more initiatives, but they never actually get the job done. The truth is that we face a massive social challenge in Britain today. After 10 years in office, there is no real sign that the Government have any idea what to do about it.

Peter Hain: I could not disagree more strongly with the rhetorical end to the hon. Gentleman's response. First, let me say that I gave no interviews before making this statement to the House. The details about the publication of the Green Paper have been given to the House before anyone else—certainly the media—has received them. Many of the details that appeared in bits and pieces in the media this morning were wrong.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to trumpet today's fantastic employment figures, which show record employment, unemployment down, and the number of people on benefits falling. Since he probed me, let me remind him of the figures. Employment is now at more than 29 million, which is 93,000 up on the quarter and 180,000 up on the year. International Labour Organisation unemployment is down. The jobseeker's allowance numbers are down by 91,000, and the number of people on incapacity benefits is down by 38,000, which can be compared with the miserable record under the Tories when it kept rising. The number is now at its lowest level for more than seven years. The number for lone parents is down by 3,000 on the previous year. There are now 317,000 more lone parents in work than there were when we came to power in 1997. I will happily talk about our record any time that the hon. Gentleman likes, including in relation to today's very good employment figures.
	The hon. Gentleman made some points about youth unemployment, although they were not specific. Actually, youth unemployment has been all but eradicated —[ Interruption. ] However, as I identified in my statement—this is also identified in the Green Paper—there is an issue in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds who are not necessarily in training, education or work. They need more intensive support, and that is precisely what we are offering them in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills so that they are given the opportunity of gaining skills and jobs in the future.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about our response to the Freud report. I would have thought that he would have welcomed our response—I would not be surprised if the report's author welcomed our response as well. Let us look at the detail. The report recommended a change to the way in which we encourage lone parents into work. We have agreed and taken that change forward. A change was recommended on using the more specialist expertise that is available in the private and voluntary sectors, as well as the public sector. After 12 months, we have adopted that approach. In some cases, we did so before 12 months, as I said in my statement —[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is heckling me, but if he had listened carefully, he would know that in some cases that can take place before the 12-month period.
	We have not gone for the big, regional private monopoly provider, because there was a strong response from stakeholders participating in the Freud report consultation that suggested that that was not necessarily the preferred model. Many private sector providers objected to a single regional monopoly provider, because if it failed the whole region would fail with it, so they said that we ought to look at provision in a more flexible way. This is a consultation document: we want to deliver the programmes and to get the best possible support for those who need and want to come off benefit and into work. That is available in the private sector—we want to take advantage of that—but it is available, too, in other ways.
	The statement and the Green Paper are a response, too, to the important report by Lisa Harker on child poverty, to the Leitch report on skills, and to the important report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. We are not just responding to the Freud report, although it is important and will inform our work in future.

Peter Hain: The truth is that more people have come on to the labour market in the past year than ever before, yet employment has still been rising, and unemployment is still falling —[ Interruption. ] I do not mind the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) heckling me—he is welcome to do so—but he should compare our record as a Government, which is proud record on employment, with his miserable record on employment, especially in areas outside the south-east where unemployment was steep and long-term and many people disappeared on to the dole, never to have any hope or prospect of a job. That is the record that we are now seeking to replace and improve. There are big challenges ahead, which is why the Green Paper signposts the way to meet them.

Peter Hain: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has long taken a close interest in manufacturing not only in his constituency, but generally. Of course, any closures are regrettable. I do not wish to make a party point, but it is a fact that when there were job losses in the 1980s and early 1990s people were just thrown on to benefit, whereas nowadays Jobcentre Plus ensures that there is a rapid response to any closure and that we work with the employers and individuals involved, and in most cases almost everyone finds a new job as a result. That is what is needed in respect of the cases the hon. Gentleman mentions.
	Over the past 10 years, when we have been in office, although globalisation pressures have intensified, increasing numbers of people have been entering new jobs and gaining new skills, supported by our employment programmes. Therefore, we can offer employment optimism for the future, despite the closures and job losses that inevitably occur given competitive pressures.

Jeff Ennis: I am sure that most Members support the Green Paper's general thrust of working towards achieving full employment, but I have a question about how single parents with children over the age of 12 will be dealt with under the proposals. Many single parents in my constituency perform a dual role in that they also look after elderly parents. That is particularly prevalent in former mining areas because of the legacy of that industry. Do the Government intend to make single parents who also care for elderly relatives seek work?

John Denham: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on delivering world-class skills in England. Natural resources, a big labour force and a dose of inspiration used to be all that was required for countries to succeed economically. Today, it is the skills of our people that matter most. We have achieved much since 1997, with 2.6 million more people in jobs, more than 1.7 million adults with literacy and numeracy qualifications and record numbers in our universities, but there is still huge challenge ahead.
	At present, in the OECD, we are 18th for low skills, 20th for intermediate skills and 11th for high skills. To be competitive in a global economy, to reach 80 per cent. participation in employment and to offer new opportunities to people in work, we must do better.
	Today, the Government are publishing the document "World Class Skills". It sets out how, with individuals and employers, we will bring about a skills revolution and close the gap between where we are now and where we need to be in 2020. Our ambition is to ensure that this country becomes a world leader in skills by 2020. That means being in the top quartile of OECD countries—the premier league for skills.
	The targets that Lord Leitch recommended, and which we have accepted, are hugely ambitious. We want 95 per cent. of adults to achieve functional literacy and numeracy by 2020, and our aim is to have more than 1.1 million more people achieving that over the next three years. We also want more than 90 per cent. of adults to be qualified to at least level 2 by 2020, with one and a half million more adults achieving a full level 2 for the first time over three years. Another objective is to shift the balance of intermediate skills from level 2 to level 3, with half a million more people reaching that standard over three years. We want to have more than 40 per cent. of adults qualified to level 4 and above by 2020, with 1.25 million more by the end of the comprehensive spending review period.
	Enhancing all our skills so much, so rapidly, will take more than the effective use of public and private money, more than changes in the way in which we organise and deliver training, and more than our overhaul of qualifications so that all employers rate them and individuals feel they are worth striving for. It will take a culture change in attitudes towards training and skills. The result will be that in the years to come, when somebody complains that they are in a dead-end job, their best friend will ask what they are doing to improve their skills. Alternatively, when employers express frustration at the skills of their employees, others will ask what they are doing to train them.
	As individuals and employers accept greater responsibility for improving their skills, they must know that we in Government accept our responsibility to support them. "World Class Skills" sets out how we will meet our responsibility. We must ensure that the rising generation starts working life with higher qualifications and higher skills. We will introduce legislation to raise the participation age to 18. We will boost the number of apprentices in England, meaning that all suitably qualified young people will have access to an apprenticeship, and we will introduce a new entitlement to free training for those aged 19 to 25, in order to help more people in that target group achieve their first full level 3 qualification.
	Seventy per cent. of the work force of 2020 have already left compulsory-age education. That is why the focus of "World Class Skills" is on adults. Our proposals are based on clear principles. First, we must ensure that employers are at the heart of the skills system. Improved skills improve productivity and competitiveness, but training must be tailored to employers' needs, delivered in ways that support their businesses, and offer qualifications in which they have confidence.
	The creation of a demand-led system of skills is our single most fundamental reform. We will make "train to gain" a much broader service that will help employers of all sizes and in all sectors to improve the skills of all their employees. We will put employers at the head of the skills system. Working with the devolved Administrations, we will create a new UK commission for employment and skills, and strengthen the employer voice at the heart of the system. We will reform the remit of sector skills councils to make them more sharply focused on raising employer ambition and investment in skills at all levels. Employers will have the key role in reforming vocational qualifications to ensure that they generate economically valuable skills. It will be easier for employers' in-house training programmes to be accredited. More higher education institutions will collaborate with employers to develop programmes and delivery methods that meet their higher-level skills needs.
	Secondly, individuals must also get training that is tailored to their needs. New skills accounts will give individuals greater ownership and choice over their learning, motivating them to gain skills and achieve qualifications, enter work and progress in employment. Moving from a poor job with few prospects to a better job can be as hard as moving from unemployment into work for the first time, so we will back skills accounts with a new universal adult careers service in England. Working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, the careers service will be able to advise on training and skills, and help overcome other barriers to ambition, such as sorting out child care. We will legislate to give adults a new legal right to access free basic literacy and numeracy programmes and training, leading to their first full level 2 qualification.
	Thirdly, we will work in partnership with employers and employees. We will step up the drive to encourage employers, large and small, to sign the skills pledge to benefit their staff. Companies that sign the skills pledge make a public commitment to support their employees to become more skilled and better qualified. We will support them through "train to gain". We recognise that the encouragement of a work colleague may often be the single most influential factor in persuading someone to improve their skills. So we will encourage trade unions in the important part they have to play in achieving our skills ambitions, through union learning representatives—currently 18,000 strong—and by building on the achievements of the new union-sponsored training programme, unionlearn.
	This partnership approach, in which we shall engage learners and employers, is crucial to the new culture we are seeking to create. Without it the nation will not meet the targets we are setting out. Failure is not an option. That is why Lord Leitch proposed that in 2010, the new commission for employment and skills should review whether we are making satisfactory progress or whether we need to introduce a statutory workplace training entitlement. I can confirm today that we will carry out such a review in 2010. However, let us make every effort to achieve our ambitions without legislation.
	Our proposals benefit employers and employees alike. The business case for investing in skills stands in its own right. It makes sense for Government to work with employers purely for the economic benefits and improved competitiveness it will bring. However, we must not forget that for many people, improved skills are the route to better jobs, higher incomes, reduced child poverty and improved social mobility. If we enable parents on low incomes to raise their aspirations and to have the opportunity to improve their lives, we can be sure that their children will have higher aspirations and better opportunities too.
	Lord Leitch challenged us all to raise the nation's skills base, build productivity, increase social inclusion and improve economic competitiveness. With employers, employees and other learners, unions, colleges, universities and training providers, we will meet that challenge. As our new skills campaign on television and in the press so rightly says: "Our Future. It's in Our Hands". I commend the paper to the House.

David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Of course, we share the Government's aim of achieving world-class skills. We agree with the powerful statement by Lord Leitch in his report that:
	"In the 21st century, our natural resource is our people—and their potential is both untapped and vast. Skills will unlock that potential."
	However, the Government have been making big promises about skills for years. In Budget after Budget, the Prime Minister launched initiative after initiative—initiatives that are supposed to be rising to the skills challenge. In his 1999 Budget statement, he said:
	"Britain must make a quantum leap in skills".—[ Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 176.]
	In fact, even before Labour came to office, in 1996, he said:
	"I want Britain to be a world skills superpower".
	Today we are told that our aim is to be in the top quartile of OECD countries—I guess that is what 10 years in government does to people.
	Perhaps one reason for that downgrading of ambition is the uncomfortable evidence that some key problems have been getting worse. The number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training has risen from 1.08 million in 1997 to 1.25 million today. That is a 15 per cent. increase. The statement should have recognised that we need a change from the failed approach of the past. Both Lord Leitch's report and the Secretary of State use the right language. They talk about a demand-led system; we completely agree. They talk about its being employer-driven; again, we completely agree. However, in order to deliver that type of system, we need a tough-minded and rigorous assessment of how our skills policies need to change, which is not, I am afraid, what we have had today.
	The report and the Government talk about a flexible employer-driven system, but the Government are keeping the panoply of controls that we have in our current centrally planned system. They will still set their plans for specific qualifications region by region, level by level and subject by subject, and further education colleges will still have to comply, churning out the paper qualifications that the Government want them to produce—when too many of those paper qualifications are not valued by employers, who understand that, sadly, a qualification is not always the same thing as a skill.
	FE colleges, about which we have heard very little from the Secretary of State, are desperate to have more freedom to respond to local needs so that they can be employer-driven, but instead they have 17 different regulatory bodies telling them what to do. As we heard in the Foster report only last year:
	"There is a galaxy of oversight, inspection and accreditation bodies. They need to be rationalised, co-ordinated and focused."
	That is what the FE colleges are calling out for. Instead of tackling the 17 bodies that already supervise FE colleges, the Secretary of State has just announced the creation of an 18th—the new UK commission for employment and skills.
	Sitting on top of that structure is the Learning and Skills Council. I think that if Lord Leitch had been given his head, he would have wished to get rid of the Learning and Skills Council. Instead, the Secretary of State has announced today a fifth reorganisation—reforming the remit of sector skills councils. What are the Government really going to do about the Learning and Skills Council? After the latest reorganisation in Whitehall, will the Secretary of State tell us what he expects its long-term role and function to be?
	If the Secretary of State had stood at the Dispatch Box and said that central planning had not worked, and that he was genuinely shifting to a demand-led, employer-driven system, we could have supported him, but sadly his statement today does not rise to that challenge.
	Let me ask the Secretary of State about specific aspects of his statement. He set out several numerical targets—"ambitious" targets, he called them—that arose from Leitch, but it is noticeable that he did not give a target for apprenticeships, despite the fact that the then Chancellor said, as recently as in the 2007 Budget, that
	"There will be average rises of...cash each year for the next three years, enabling us to...do more to double apprenticeship numbers to 500,000".—[ Official Report, 21 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 828.]
	In his December 2007 pre-Budget report, he again talked about apprenticeships rising to 500,000. Has the Secretary of State dropped the target, either because he no longer believes in such central targets for apprenticeships, or because he is afraid that he will not reach it? After all, the number of apprenticeships has fallen from 135,000 to 123,000 in the past 18 months. If he is committed to the target, why did he not refer to it in his statement?
	The Secretary of State referred to focusing on adults—rightly so, because many of the people whose skills we need to raise are already in the work force. However, we really need to know what the Government are doing about the catastrophic fall in the number of FE adult learning places, which is down by 1 million. We cannot talk about the importance of adult retraining and reskilling when the Government's mechanism for financing FE colleges shifts those colleges away from helping adults. He also talked about making "train to gain" a broad service, but is he aware that a criticism made of "train to gain" is that it has a very high dead-weight cost? A lot of that cost goes on programmes and training that would have happened anyway.
	I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State enjoys reading Institute for Fiscal Studies appraisals of his policies, and I am sure that he will recognise its statement that there is no "systematic evidence" that the programme had
	"significantly increased employer provision of, or employee engagement in, training".
	The appraisal estimated that about 85 to 90 per cent. of "train to gain" costs could be dead-weight. It went on to say that it could be that
	"the true effect is zero percentage points implying 100 per cent. deadweight."
	Why are the Government putting more money into "train to gain" when evaluations show that it has such a high dead-weight cost? Of course, the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills responded to that challenge by saying:
	"the idea behind Train to Gain is to assist small businesses, which is where a particular problem lies".—[ Official Report, 8 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 975.]
	It appears that the current Secretary of State has changed that approach; "train to gain" is no longer to be targeted on smaller businesses, in an attempt to respond to the problem of dead-weight cost. Why does he believe that his new general approach will improve the situation in any way?
	We welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the new skills account. It could be significant, and it could give individuals much greater control over their training. We look forward to seeing the detail of that proposal, and we hope that lessons have been learned from the failure of individual learning accounts. However, I have to say that the statement does not rise to the challenge of providing an employer-driven, individually focused service to improve the nation's skills. It does not rise to the challenge of his new Department.

John Denham: Obviously, to some extent I am slightly disappointed by the tone that the hon. Gentleman has adopted, but it is important to explore the claims that he makes so that we can see whether his response deserves to be treated as having any credibility. He attacked the Government for their failure to make progress on skills over the past 10 years—but as I said in my statement, the reality is that there has been considerable progress since we inherited a disastrous situation from the Conservative Government.
	It is a bit rich to hear questions being asked about apprenticeships, because in the early 1990s, the reality was that one could go from one end of the country to the other and barely find a young person who was entering an apprenticeship, because the entire system had collapsed. We had to rebuild the apprenticeship system, not just in terms of the number of people involved, but in terms of the success rates and completion rates, which have gone up dramatically over the past two or three years. We have brought 1.14 million adults up to level 2 in the past four years. We have taken 1.75 million people through the skills for life programme. There were 250,000 people on apprenticeships in England last year, compared with only 75,000 in 1997—and those 75,000 had only just begun. We have every reason to be proud of what we have achieved from a very difficult starting point, but we have the honesty to set before the House the scale of the challenge that faces us in the years ahead.
	As for whether what we have said matches up to what is needed, we accept some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about FE colleges, but he will know that work is under way to design and introduce a lighter-touch regulatory system for them, and I hope that we can make more progress on that in the months to come. He criticised us first for expanding "train to gain", and secondly for failing to introduce a demand-led system that responds to the needs of employers. If he does not like "train to gain", he will at some point have to tell us what a demand-led system shaped by the interests of employers would actually look like. "Train to gain" is designed to make sure that the money in the skills system is used to ensure that FE colleges and other providers offer the training provision that employers actually want and recognise, and qualifications that employers value.
	The hon. Gentleman was somewhat dismissive of what we said about taking a look at vocational qualifications, but to me that issue is central. There are employers who say that they are not sure that level 2 qualifications they give them what they want, so our plans to work with the commission for employment and skills to overhaul the sector skills councils are central if we are to have a skills system that delivers what employers want.
	The issue of dead-weight, particularly in the employment training pilots, has been raised. We will bring forward more detailed plans to extend "train to gain" in the autumn, and we will then need to set out how we intend to keep an eye on the issue. Of course, we do not in any way want to lose the quality of service offered to smaller employers, which they rate very highly, but it is right that the same responsiveness should be offered to a wider range of employers. I hope that I have covered the fundamental points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, I should say to him that the target of 500,000 apprenticeships is set out prominently in the document. That is a UK target, and my commitment today is on meeting England's share of that overall target, but in no sense has the UK target disappeared from our ambitions and aspirations.

John Denham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which are all pertinent. I shall try to address them all. Of course I understand why the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is not able to be present today.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Learning and Skills Council, so I shall take the opportunity to set out the position. As he knows, the funding for school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and the contribution of FE colleges to 14-to-19 provision will transfer from the LSC to local authority ring-fenced budgets. My estimate is that we will not be able to give effect to the full legislative changes until the academic year 2010-11, so the legal responsibility will remain with the LSC over that period. We will co-operate sensibly and closely with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to make sure that provision is delivered effectively both for young people in that age group and for adult learners.
	For post-19 education and training, we will consider how best to deliver the functions and services that support the FE system, and I want to build on the progress made with the LSC over recent years in developing a demand-led approach. As we do that, we will work closely with the LSC and other national partners, and consult schools, colleges and providers to ensure that the new arrangements are introduced smoothly. We will take the opportunity to review how the funding and accountability framework can best support initiative and high performance at institutional level and across the FE sector as a whole.
	On participation to 18, the set of principles are similar to those that I discussed in my statement. We would rather not use compulsion, but we cannot rule it out if sufficient progress is not made. That must be the approach to young people in education and training. The detailed allocation of costs will depend to some extent on the balance between employer-based and work-based training.
	On 19-to-25 provision, I make no apologies for the fact that the Government have set out repeatedly their vision of being able to offer an apprenticeship to anybody in the 16-to-19 age group who wants to go on an apprenticeship, and a commitment to level 3 up to age 25. It has taken time to build up capacity in the apprenticeship system from where we started to bring that goal more and more within reach, and we continue to make progress. I do not regard it as a rehashed promise, but rather as one towards which we are steadily making progress.
	With respect to universities, HEFCE has developed a package with universities for about 5,000 co-funded higher level placements with industry for the coming period. That is a step in the right direction, but the bigger issue that the hon. Gentleman might like to consider is that of the entire training budget held by employers, only 3 per cent. is spent with higher education institutions. That suggests that there is a massive potential to increase the volume of higher level education and training involving universities from the present level. That is something that we need to discuss in the years to come.
	On the skills pledge, we will step up the drive to get companies to join the skills pledge. The noble Lord Jones, who is now a Government Minister, brought a particular and individual verve and passion to the skills pledge, and he slotted into the post very naturally indeed. I have already met Sir Michael Rake, who will chair the commission on employment and skills, to discuss how we continue and whether it would be appropriate to look for a single envoy or whether the commission as a body, which will have strong employer representation, may be a better vehicle to take the pledge forward. I hope we can resolve that quickly.
	The starting point for resources for the adult careers service is to bring together learndirect and nextstep. It makes sense to co-ordinate those services and to stress the importance of the close working relationship with Jobcentre Plus. On the starting point at 14, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the diploma programme.
	Finally, I do not believe that adult skills is a Cinderella. What Leitch has given us for the first time is a logical framework to approach funding, with the public sector recognising a responsibility particularly in the area of basic skills and level 2 qualifications, and a recognition that higher level qualifications should rightly attract a larger contribution from individuals and employers because the direct and immediate benefits to them are that much greater. That gives us a sensible framework for deciding how we want to fund this crucial area of work.

Lords Reasons fo r insisting on their Amendments, considered.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 20, 67 to 70 and 72.

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 20, 67 to 70 and 72, does not insist on its Amendments 15B and 15C, but proposes the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by disagreement with Lords Amendment No. 15: (a), (b) and (c).
	We are dealing with pre-release, which is the final point of contention relating to the Bill. Since our last debate on the Floor of the House, the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will call for a vote to confirm the recommended candidate for the chair of the Statistics Board, before the measure goes to the Queen. That is in addition to our commitment to reduce further the length of time for which pre-release access is available to 24 hours for all UK-wide and reserved statistics. Hon. and right hon. Members will recall that the previous agreement was for 40.5 hours. By committing to reduce pre-release access from the current period of up to 5 days to what will now be a maximum of 24 hours, the Government are demonstrating that they have listened and responded to the views expressed during the debates on the Bill in both Houses. It is time that the Government were given credit for the moves and changes that have been made during the Bill's passage.
	Under the proposals, it remains up to the Government to determine the precise content of the new pre-release arrangements under the new system, but our commitment today is to provide on the face of the Bill that the board must also be consulted. Moreover, pre-release arrangements will be set out in secondary legislation. The affirmative statutory instrument will set out rules and principles to restrict the number of people who receive pre-release access and the statistical series to which pre-release might apply. It will also restrict the length of time for which pre-release access is available to a maximum of 24 hours for reserve statistics.
	It has been more than 60 years since the previous statistical measure appeared before the House. We are concerned to ensure that the Bill leaves the House as "future-proofed" as possible in case it takes another 60 years to introduce another statistics Act. We want to ensure that the statistical community of the future operates under a system that is sufficiently flexible to remain relevant as needs change. The Government are therefore providing for pre-release arrangements to be contained in secondary rather than primary legislation. That is sensible, prudent and appropriate.
	The processes will provide a powerful role for the board in determining the new arrangements. Under our proposals, the role will be confirmed in the Bill. It has never been the Government's intention, in including pre-release arrangements in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill or the code of practice, to give Ministers a free rein. The proposed arrangement would not lead to such an outcome. It ensures that pre-release arrangements are subject to public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and open debate.
	As I announced on 2 July, there will be a public consultation on the proposed content of the statutory instrument. Such consultation will be key to creating rules and principles for pre-release access that are credible, practical and appropriate in the context of the wider code.
	As hon. Members know from previous debates, under clause 25, the board may at any time produce a report about any matter that relates to the exercise of its functions. If it does that, it must lay it before one or more Houses of Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
	Since the board has functions under clause 8 to monitor pre-release access and will be consulted on the draft regulations, it may, if it wishes, prepare its response—or any concerns that it may have once the system is operational—as a formal report under clause 25. Even after a full consultation, the Bill provides that should it not be content with the outcome, or should it, in the fullness of time, wish further changes to the regime to be established in secondary legislation, it could not only call publicly for further changes, but do so in a formal report laid before the House.
	Clearly, were such a report prepared and laid before Parliament, we would expect Parliament—and the media—to question the Government on whether they would take up the independent board's recommendations, and to ask, "If not, why not?"
	As I have stated previously, the Government are committed to reviewing the operation of the pre-release arrangements after 12 months. That is precisely the sort of event in which we expect the board to be closely involved—and precisely the sort of event that might trigger its members writing such a report under clause 25(3), if they wished to do that.
	The Bill, together with the new legislative duty to consult the board in determining the content of the pre-release regime, will ensure a strong and meaningful role for the board in influencing the content of the pre-release regime and in enforcing the new arrangements.
	When the content of the secondary legislation has been agreed, it will be laid before the House for approval by affirmative resolution. Once commenced, clause 11(3) provides that the board must treat the content of the secondary legislation as though it were part of the code of practice.
	The Government intend that the board should play a full and meaningful role in determining the new pre-release arrangements and ensuring that they are complied with. There is substantial consensus on the importance and value of the Bill, which will govern the statistical system in this country. We have reached consensus on most of the key structures and processes that the Bill will establish. I hope that the hon. Members will support our proposals.

Philip Hammond: Indeed, although the Exchequer Secretary did not come quite as late to the Bill as I did. I have had the pleasure of reading myself in, by looking at the debates in this place and the other place over the past six months or so. I have been struck by the irony that in a Bill that is designed to tackle the public perception of a culture of spin, it is the clauses most closely identified with that spin culture on which the Government have proved most resistant. It is doubly ironic that the debate itself has been mired in spin, first, when the Exchequer Secretary tried to convince the House that her voting for a report that argues for a three-hour maximum for pre-release is entirely consistent with standing at that Dispatch Box arguing for 40 hours for pre-release. Then there have been Ministers here and in the other place affecting not to understand the expectation that a clear statement by the Prime Minister that there will be a 24-hour maximum on pre-release should mean just that, and not that the Government want to retain flexibility.
	The intervention by the Prime Minister is an important element in this debate, but because it came on 3 July, it has not been debated in this House before. Was his constitutional statement on 3 July substantive or was it just spin? Was it a pre-emptive strike designed to head off demands for genuine independent control over pre-release? If his statement was substantive, why not write the 24-hour limit that he pledged into the Bill? He did not mention flexibility in his statement to the House and he did not say that the measure was subject to the small print. The commitment was simple—24 hours maximum. If we cannot take that at face value and incorporate it into the Bill, what credibility does the rest of that statement have?
	Not 18 hours before the Prime Minister made that statement, the Exchequer Secretary was rather half-heartedly defending the 40.5-hour limit, saying:
	"my duty at the Dispatch Box tonight is to say that the Government think that 40.5 hours is the appropriate time for pre-release, and that is what I will do."—[ Official Report, 2 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 728.]
	That was hardly a ringing personal endorsement, one might think. Some 18 hours later, the Prime Minister said:
	"I propose that we reduce the advance sight that Government Departments have of the release of statistical information from as much as five days currently to just 24 hours."—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 817.]
	That was straightforward, except that on 9 July Lord Davies of Oldham further clarified the situation in the other place, saying:
	"We do not want to put the length of time for pre-release access in primary legislation as we want flexibility".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 1237.]
	Either there has been a serious communication problem at the heart of the Government or old-fashioned spin is alive and well.
	The Exchequer Secretary cannot have known on 2 July what the Prime Minister was going to say on 3 July, because if she had, she would have been misleading the House with her statement, and she certainly would not have done any such thing. She then wrote to Committee members, also on 3 July, claiming that the Prime Minister's statement reflected the concerns expressed in the House the previous evening. So, she would apparently have us believe that after the debate on 2 July she nipped round to No. 10 after the House rose, and that she and the Prime Minister decided on a 24-hour maximum over a cup of cocoa. I am not sure what worries me the most: the idea that there is no communication at the heart of the Government, the idea that they have retained their attachment to the culture of spin or policy making on the hoof on such an epic scale.
	The Government of course claim that they have made a concession by requiring Ministers to consult the board before exercising the power to set the rules. However, the Exchequer Secretary must accept that the point of principle is that Ministers must not be judge and jury in their own cases, in relation to pre-release. The proper way to proceed now is for her to accept the Lords amendment—not scrapping pre-release, because that is not what is proposed, but allowing the board independently to determine the rules for pre-release, after consulting Ministers and taking into account their legitimate needs. The alternative way is for her to commit the Government to bringing in their own amendments to deliver a substantive role for the board in the pre-release process—I mean a substantive role, not merely a consultative role—if and when the Bill returns to the House of Lords after this debate.
	While the Exchequer Secretary is at it, perhaps she will also commit herself to including the 24-hour absolute maximum limit on pre-release in the Bill—not because I suggest that, but because her own Prime Minister has said that. The principle behind the Bill must be that statistics should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the intermediation of politicians.

Question put,
	 The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 190.

Nick Herbert: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has moved the motion. As late as last night, Baroness Ashton, the Minister in the other place, said that the Bill was hanging in the balance and that there was
	"little to be gained by extending the time available...simply to prolong the passage of the Bill between this House and the other place."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 137.]
	The tabling of the motion at the eleventh hour ensures that the Bill will not fall on Friday and that we will have more time to consider it.
	We are in unusual, if not uncharted, waters. It is exceptional for the other place to ask this House to think again by insisting for a fourth time. The fact that the other place has voted to include within the Bill's remit the deaths of people in custody in police and prison cells no fewer than five times shows the strength of feeling. Indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their feelings about the matter.
	The Bill received its First Reading in this House a year ago. It would have been quite wrong to have allowed the Bill to fall when the power to extend the timetable lay in the Government's hands. The Secretary of State was therefore right to move the motion.
	We will debate the substantive issue shortly, but the Government have already conceded the principle that deaths in custody should be covered by the Bill. At the moment, that will happen by order. We have been discussing when that should happen. There is no point in extending the time for debate if the Government are unwilling to move on the question of when that should happen, or to tell the House more about their concerns about the immediate introduction of such a provision. We will now have time to reflect on those issues. However, given that it is clear that the Government again intend to reject the Lords amendments that propose an 18-month time frame, I hope that they will make a constructive proposal for a reasonable time frame. If they do not do so, I hope that the other place will be robust in insisting that its proposal is adhered to. We will listen with interest to what the Secretary of State says about that. However, I welcome the fact that he has conceded that further time is needed for reflection and possible compromise on this important issue.

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tells us that he certainly was not. In any event, the offer was made, there was a free vote, and the House in its wisdom voted against no September sitting and in favour of the tabling of parliamentary questions in early September. So there is not much of a point to be made in that regard.
	As for the substantive points that have been made, I think it best for us to proceed to the substantive debate, if the House agrees that we should extend the period by seven days.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by the period of seven days.

Lords Message insisting on Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, disagreeing to Commons Amendments in lieu and proposing Amendments in lieu of those Commons Amendments.
	 Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 10P and 10Q.

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments Nos. 2,3,5,6 and 10; does not insist on its Amendments 10K to ION in lieu but disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 10P and 10Q in lieu of those amendments; and proposes Government amendments (a) to (j) in lieu.
	For the benefit of Members who may be wondering on which piece of paper to find the amendments—I understand the concern of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has, as ever, been assiduous—they are on page 1663, as amended. As the rubric states, that is
	"due to the omission of a word in the Government motion."
	Members—particularly those who have been debating it at some length—are familiar with the history of the Bill. We tabled it because we thought it important that there should be offences in respect of corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide. We have already accepted in principle the difference—which I shall explain shortly—between our amendment 10A, rejected in the other place, and the amendments that we are about to discuss.
	The basis of last week's debate—which was dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and for almost all of which I was present—was not whether the Government had accepted the principle of the application of the offence to deaths in custody, but whether we would ensure that that principle was exercised at some reasonable time in the future. The difference involved is significant.
	I understand the objection that was raised. While doubts may be expressed and debating points made about the time that it has taken to travel this road to Damascus, at least we are on track now. The objection to the wording of amendment 10A lay in the fact that the provision for the Act to extend to deaths in custody—as it will—was discretionary, and was in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment stated
	"The Secretary of State may by order make amendments"
	to the law. It also stated what those amendments could cover, and proposed that the order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Amendment (a) states that
	"a duty is owed to a person who, by reason of being a person within subsection (1A), is someone for whose safety the organisation is responsible".
	Subsection (1A) defines the different categories of custody. Amendment (b) defines a custodial institution, in a very wide sense, and a detained person. It also gives other definitions. Also, there is under amendment (h) the power to extend, but never to subtract from, the scope of custody as laid down by what will become section 2(1A). By order, that section will be able to
	"include any category of person (not already included)".
	In both cases, that must be done by affirmative procedure.
	That is a significant change. Members of this House and the other place might argue about whether it is sufficient, and I will deal with the vexed issue of timing, but there is a significant difference between where we were and where we are now.
	It is clear—not least in respect of the civil injuries compensation measures of a few years ago—that where a Bill is extended by inserting the word "shall" instead of "may" legitimate and understandable expectations may arise that the measures concerned must be exercised. Neither I nor any other Minister proposes to add this duty to the Bill with the cynical idea that it will not be activated.
	I now wish to address the anxieties that were abroad—

Douglas Hogg: Before the Secretary of State moves on, let me say that his remarks highlight one of the problems in trying to relate a package of amendments to a Bill. I am unable to find in either the package or the Bill a statutory requirement that the Secretary of State should make an order implementing the duties in respect of the persons now designated as being covered. That is what I am looking for, but although it might well be in the package or the Bill, I cannot find it.

Jack Straw: The precise wording that the right hon. and learned Gentleman searches for is not in the Bill, so it is unsurprising that he cannot find it. I do not accept the gravamen of the point.  [Interruption.] As I have said, I will come on to the timing issue.
	As has been explained, the problem lies in some of the complexities of bringing the proposed legislation into force in respect of police services and the Prison Service. That has been debated at length. The issue is not whether the power should be extended to custody—that has been conceded—but the exact circumstances. I must take account—as must the Home Secretary in respect of her responsibilities—of the current environment in which both the police and the Prison Service operate. They do not wish for it suddenly to become okay for there to be deaths in custody—unexplained deaths, not deaths by natural causes—and for them not to be inquired into, or for those responsible for negligence or worse in respect of those deaths not to be subject to any sanction.
	I hope that all Members concede that there has over recent decades been a huge improvement in the treatment in police custody of persons arrested, from the moment of arrest. In my experience, there were never significant problems in the charge room; problems arose at the time of arrest, during transport to the police station and in the cells. Before we changed the law, one of the tasks that I, when I was Home Secretary, had to perform was act in effect as a final court of appeal on serious disciplinary appeals by police officers, some of which related to events in custody and dated back some years.
	There was a sea change as a result of the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the codes under it, changes in police culture, the courts rightly becoming less tolerant of improper behaviour inside police stations, and the introduction of closed circuit television—and subsequently an understanding by the police that they would be much better served if their behaviour in the custody areas and interview suites was recorded. Moreover, if there are unexpected or unexplained deaths in police custody, in almost all circumstances there is an immediate inquiry by the independent Police Complaints Authority. With the Prison Service, the circumstances are different in that by that stage people have been sentenced—or at least, if they are awaiting trial, are not under interrogation.
	There have been significant improvements in the treatment of prisoners, as I have observed in the 10 years in which I have been in contact with the Prison Service. Improvements had been made before that as well, but we now have an effective inspectorate. The Bill will also place the Prison Service ombudsman on a statutory basis, which is another sign that we have listened to representations.
	There are anxieties in the police and the Prison Service that unless they have time to understand fully the extent of these obligations and take steps to implement them, the services—not at a senior level, but at a lower level—will start to become risk averse, and that could have many adverse consequences.

Jack Straw: I do not disagree with the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and that is to some extent why I believe that what we are arguing about is not a great deal. As things stand, officers in the police and the Prison Service could easily be exposed to the risk of prosecution, if incidents of the kind that have been described in the past were to happen repeatedly. For example, a prison or police officer who commits an unlawful act that leads to death or injury has always been liable to prosecution: that has happened at various times in the past, and other offences are available that could apply to people responsible for outcomes of that sort.
	Thankfully, however, there are only a tiny handful of homicides in prison every year. In addition, there are about 60 to 70 incidents of self-inflicted harm and suicides annually. That is 60 or 70 too many but, tragically, such things are going to happen in the best ordered prison. We are doing a great deal to get the numbers down, and we are also working very hard with the police service to the same end.
	I agree that we should try to find a reasonable time that is less than five to seven years. I assure the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I have no intention of sitting on my hands and saying, "Okay, that's fine." However, although I have a lot of experience of the Prison Service, I have in effect been abroad for five years, and I need to take some time to go into the detail about how long the period should be. The same is true of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the Home Office.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asks whether we are dealing with a structural or a management problem. One can never be certain, as some problems can be both. Structural changes can be dealt with by changes in management practice that are followed by changes in the culture. I do not want to argue about that, but the other truth is that we will benefit if we take some time over the work in hand. Bluntly, I do not want us to find ourselves in the situation that has faced certain organisations in respect of health and safety.
	The House of Commons is a famous example of that. An awful lot of time was spent on a risk assessment as to whether someone could go out through the double doors and run up a flag on the mansard roof of Portcullis house. It was not until I insisted on taking the risk myself that we were able to break through the problem, with the result that the flag is now flying. Funnily enough, the introduction of a bolt changed everything.

Dominic Grieve: That is indeed helpful, and it is exactly the sort of time frame that I would have expected. It highlights, if I may say so, the difference between what will be done to everybody else, and what will affect the Prison Service, the custodial environment and the police. The right hon. Gentleman earlier prayed in aid the health and safety legislation. As I think he knows, that is the area in which I practised in the years before coming to this place— [Interruption.] I did not introduce the legislation. I prosecuted on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive or local authorities, or represented those who got had got themselves into trouble.
	Defendants who had killed their own employees—that happens all the time—used to say, "It's all so difficult. Bringing about the culture change in our organisation has proved so problematical. We do our best, but sometimes things go wrong. We accept that, and if we only had longer, we might have avoided this." There are great lamentations, to which Parliament has responded serially with the word "Tough"—That is, "Tough maybe, but we want to bring about the culture change, and you are going to have to take the necessary steps to meet the requirements."
	What troubles me is that what we are hearing from the Government is, "The culture is going to be so difficult to change and we don't want to press the services all that much." This is not an issue that can be dictated by the current problems in the Prison Service. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why. I am sure he would be the first to admit that the idea that over the next 100 years the Prison Service or the police will not have to cope again with periods when there are problems of overcrowding is a fantasy. That has been a perennial issue for a long time, yet I detect that he is waiting for a magical moment when suddenly the problems of the Prison Service are sufficiently assuaged that the measure can be implemented.
	However, the issue is a managerial one, and it is precisely in periods of difficulty that the services will be put on their mettle. The idea that that will lead to some terrible problem is wrong. If they carry out their duties properly, even if there are deaths in custody, there will be no risk of prosecution. It is in cases where there has been gross negligence, which is what we are discussing, that the services will be called to account.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu, Lords amendment No. 9 and the Government motion to disagree, Lords amendment No. 12 and the Government motion to disagree, and Lords amendment No. 13 and the Government motion to disagree.

David Hanson: May I begin by expressing the Government's appreciation of the very careful scrutiny that the Bill received in another place? Much good work has been done and many improvements have been made, and I thank my noble Friend, Baroness Scotland and colleagues in another place and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for the work that they undertook in guiding the Bill through Committee and another place. As Members will know, I took up my post eight weeks ago, but the Bill has been existence for a considerable period, so I pay tribute to my colleagues for the work that they have done.
	The concerns that hon. Members expressed on Report and Third Reading have now been addressed in another place and we have a better Bill as a result. It may be helpful to remind the House and colleagues what the Bill will achieve and why it is so important. The statutory duty to deliver probation services lies with 42 individual probation boards, which are working to centrally-set targets and whose chief officers are directly line-managed by the director of probation in Whitehall. The arrangement was introduced after the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 was passed, and it has delivered a great deal. Some 97 per cent. of pre-sentence reports to magistrates courts are delivered within the deadline specified by the court, and there has been considerable increase in the number of unpaid work completions—55,000 last year, against a target of 50,000, which represents an increase of over 4,000 compared with 2005-06.
	We can be proud of the fact that probation workers are dedicated, are working strongly and have put into effect a number of key measures, including on unpaid work. However, the House would want me to understand the need to consolidate those gains. The task of tackling the issue of reoffending is a complex one, and we need to do the best that we can to ensure that the best available providers are engaged. To date, about 96 per cent. of services have been provided in-house by probation boards. We need to do more to involve other providers in support of the public sector, particularly, may I tell my hon. Friends, to support the work that it undertakes. We need, too, to move towards more outcome-focused arrangements that free providers from all sectors to innovate.
	The Bill as drafted lifts from probation boards the statutory duty for making arrangements for probation services, and places it firmly on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. It creates new public sector bodies, probation trusts, with whom the Secretary of State may contract. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend will run services directly from Whitehall. What we are proposing, and what I hope the House will accept, is a coherent structure that enables services to be commissioned at an appropriate level with clear lines of accountability. Commissioning of services under the new arrangements—I hope that this will reassure all hon. Members—will take place at national, regional and local levels. That has been of concern to several of my hon. Friends, and I hope that the discussions that we have had during the passage of the Bill have helped them to understand where we are with the particular service that I am seeking to introduce.

David Hanson: I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurances about what will be commissioned at national, regional or local level. What I will say is that it is—I hope—self-evident that certain services need to be provided at national level, and others at regional level. I hope and believe that a considerable amount will be provided at local level, but, for reasons I think my hon. Friend will understand, I am not in a position to assure him of that today. We need to examine in detail some of the services that will be provided.
	I can say today that, in the case of most services, regional commissioners will make arrangements with lead providers, who, in turn, will act as both providers and commissioners for the probation area. Provided that their performance meets the required standard, as I believe it will in most cases, the lead providers will be the probation trusts. They will concentrate on delivering core offender management work, while commissioning interventions at local level. I believe that they will welcome that, and that it will help the Bill's passage through the House of Commons.
	The Government oppose the Lords amendments because they seek to undermine the entire basis of our proposals to improve the delivery of probation services. When they were debated in another place, their supporters were unequivocal in their backing for greater involvement of providers from other sectors, particularly the voluntary sector. Speaking to the amendments on behalf of the Opposition, Lady Anelay said:
	"We have no philosophical or political objection to probation services being provided from outside the existing public provision."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 2007; Vol. 692 c. 552.]
	That was consistent with what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said when summing up for the Opposition on Third Reading. It is therefore hard for me to understand why the Opposition have tabled their amendments, as those who support them claim that the Government proposals in part 1 are centralising—but, as I have explained, they are not. They allow the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor to determine what needs to be commissioned, as is his responsibility. There will therefore be clear accountability and responsibility in respect of what he at the national level asks regional commissioners to commission, and there will also be clarity in respect of what they in turn ask of local commissioning boards. The amendment would destroy that clear accountability and that focus in national, regional and local commissioning by removing completely the local element and not sufficiently clarifying the relationship between the Secretary of State and the local trusts.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for ensuring that I do not mislead myself, but let me say that I am clear about the points I making to the House today. I am aware that my hon. Friends hold the views he has described on contracting out. I fully expect the vast majority of current probation boards—in future, probation trusts—to have sufficient quality to be able to secure services at local level and then be in a position to determine, with regional support and a national framework and direction, the services that they provide. I am also clear, however, that we will need to ensure that we raise the standards of probation trusts that do not meet the standards that we expect as, sadly, some current probation boards underperform. We must raise standards, and I have every confidence that we can do that within the framework of the public sector—with the vast majority of trusts remaining public sector-based and delivering services at the local level, and with support from regional commissioners and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	I do not support the amendments as they would remove the regional structure; it is claimed that services provided at regional level could not provide economies, and the issue of potentially underperforming probation trusts at the local level is not tackled, because no meaningful clarification is offered of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the trusts. The amendments would do a disservice to people whom all Members wish to be supported; we all want offenders in the probation service to be helped not to reoffend.
	There is an honest disagreement. I hold a different view from that held in another place, and I am trying to explain it. I hope that I will secure the support not only of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) but of my hon. Friends. The amendments sound appealing but they are not realistic, and Governments deal with reality. The proposals in part 1 of the Bill will enable probation services to be delivered by a range of providers, and to be tailored to local needs and set within a clear framework of accountability.
	That clear and consistent approach should be contrasted with that suggested by the amendments. It is claimed that the amendments provide for local commissioning, but they do not. They would give us the worst of all worlds. They do not provide the means to ensure greater involvement for other providers and they do not provide for any meaningful accountability. Nor do they provide the means for entering into a mature dialogue when concerns about performance arise, as they will with some underperforming boards, save for the blunt instrument of making provision elsewhere. That is not a format or mechanism that my hon. Friends would support in principle.
	As I have said, I am grateful for the contribution that the other place has made to the debate on this Bill. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends for their close scrutiny of some of the issues. Much progress has been made with the Bill during its passage and I hope that tonight we can make further progress with some of the amendments. As hon. Members will see with later amendments, the Government agree with some elements suggested in the other place. However, I cannot support amendment No. 6, and nor can the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations or, dare I say it, the CBI. I know that that will help to drag my hon. Friends en masse into the Lobby. However, that is an important contribution, because the CBI has to work with the people in the probation service. The Local Government Association does not support the amendment either.
	I hope that the lack of support from those three organisations and the consideration that we have given the Bill today will persuade the House to reject the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the Bill provides the possibility of determined commissioning at a national, regional and local level, in the interests of the probation service and offenders, with the objective of reducing crime.

Edward Garnier: I shall deal with that question head on. It is not surprising that an organisation such as ACEVO, which represents some of the country's biggest charitable organisations in this field—or that the CBI, which represents some of the biggest companies in the country—should prefer the convenience of bilateral relations with the Secretary of State for Justice or one of his subordinates. That subordinate could be the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, or it could be one of her subordinates—namely, a regional offender manager who is directly responsible, up the chain of command, to the Secretary of State.
	Such a system would be preferable for the organisations that I have mentioned, because they would not have to go through what they regard as the expensive administrative inconvenience of having to deal with the more than 40 probation trusts that will come into existence under this Bill, or what are now known as probation boards. I can understand that. If I ran an organisation such as Turning Point or one of the other grant farmers—and I use the expression in a descriptive rather than pejorative way—that operate in the field, I would find it altogether more convenient to deal with the smallest possible number of contracting partners.
	I received a fairly apoplectic letter from Mr. Bubb during the Bill's Report stage in this House, and a rather less apoplectic one the other day. The latter was addressed to "Dear Edward", and it was couched in identical terms to letters that were sent to every other Member of Parliament. I suspect that each letter addressed its recipient by his or her first name, but Mr. Bubb is employed to advance ACEVO's interests and I do not criticise him for that. However, I am employed by my constituents and the public as a whole to try to produce the best possible legislation, and to ensure that it best suits the purpose of improving the supervision of offenders and protecting victims. To be honest, the Minister's arguments contain nothing that supports the contention made by the Attorney-General in the other place that the Bill is designed to achieve those aims. The Government's objective in seeking to overturn the amendments is fairly straightforward: they want to concentrate the power of contracting into a few, centrally located hands.
	I debated these matters at a meeting of the Local Government Association not long ago with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), when he was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Justice. He said, quite candidly, that the line of responsibility of a regional offender manager would not be to the local community, or to the local probation board or trust. Instead, the chain of command would go up the line and back to Whitehall: it used to be to Peel house and the Home Secretary, although it is now to Selbourne house and the Secretary of State for Justice. Unless the Government understand why there is so much cross-party objection to the model, the argument will go on for quite some time. It may or may not be a dialogue of the deaf.
	The Minister must understand that there is a need for, and a genuine purpose in having, commissioning at a local level. For goodness' sake, most crime is committed locally. Yes, I fully understand that there is a problem with international, cross-border and cross-regional crime. However, most of the work that is done in the Crown courts—I declare an interest as a Crown court recorder who occasionally has to read probation officers' pre-sentencing reports and has to seek the advice of such people when considering sentences—and certainly most of the work that is done in the magistrates courts is locally derived.
	It therefore seems to us that the best response to local crime, in terms of community sentences and what is required in the supervision of offenders—both offenders on community sentences and those who have been released from custody—is one that is derived locally. The local judiciary, local councillors, the local magistracy, local probation officers and staff, and all the other interlinking agencies, such as social services, education authorities and others—all of whom have a common interest in reducing offending in the local area and supervising offenders in the most effective way—are the best reservoir of information and knowledge about how to organise things. No matter how good the motives of the Secretary of State or the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service and her regional offender managers, that is putting the cart before the horse. I urge the Government to think carefully about how they wish to take this matter forward.
	If one reads the letter sent by the Secretary of State for Justice to me and no doubt others in the House, one can see evidence of the constant desire to pull things back into Whitehall and to control. I am sure that the Minister will have cast an eye over the letter before it was sent out from his Ministry. The Secretary of State writes:
	"The aim of the Bill is to improve the delivery of probation services so as to reduce re-offending and better protect the public."
	That is not controversial. The letter continues:
	"To achieve this, the Bill removes the exclusive existing role for local probation boards, and establishes probation trusts as the public sector providers with whom the Secretary of State may contract. Regional Offender Managers...acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will commission services."
	So, even in the third paragraph of the letter, we can see the direction of travel.
	The letter continues:
	"Commissioning will be an activity taking place at national, regional and local levels. Instead of the current situation, where 42 probation boards are managed directly from the centre, local lead providers will work under contract to ROMs for the delivery of services in a probation area."
	So, we are going to have members of ACEVO and the CBI coming to deals with the ROM about how best to carve up the national cake. The matter will be dealt with at a regional or national level and any crumbs that fall off the edge of the regional or national table and which ACEVO or the CBI do not want will be allowed to be picked up by the smaller fry, who will be permitted to have their share.
	The letter goes on:
	"The lead provider will concentrate on the delivery of offender management, while sub-contracting much of their interventions work to other providers based on what is most effective, and who is best placed to deliver, in their local community."
	I pause there to comment that the person who is going to decide who is best placed to deliver is not somebody who is based locally, but the Secretary of State, via his subordinates. He will look from on high with his telescope at the worker bees getting on with such work as he condescends to give them, whereas I would rather the worker bees contracted directly locally, taking into account what is relevant and works in particular constituencies.
	The letter continues:
	"Where interventions can be delivered more effectively across a region, ROMs will contract directly with providers, but this will be so as to complement, not replace, the local arrangements."
	Hon. Members can believe that if they will. Later on in the letter, the Secretary of State mentions accountability and local links, and says that he wants
	"to use the powers in the Bill to devolve power to the local level. In particular, we will strengthen the existing local and regional arrangements for reducing re-offending across a range of partner organisations."
	Well, guess where those organisations will come from. The letter continues:
	"We have demonstrated this on the face of the Bill by amending it to ensure that the duties to agree, and have regard to, Local Area Agreements transfer from the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, along with the commensurate duties to co-operate with the relevant local authority overview and scrutiny committees. The boards of probation trusts are now required to include a local authority councillor"—
	this is an interesting point—
	"where practicable."
	Guess who will decide when it is practicable for a local authority representative to become involved: it will be the regional offender managers, the chief executive officer of the National Offender Management Service, the Secretary of State, or even the Minister. We can see that the whole philosophy behind the Secretary of State's argument is to pretend to give with one hand, but actually to control and to retain with both hands, so I look on what the Government propose with the greatest scepticism.
	Due to time constraints, I will not argue in support of the points that Members in the other place made in favour of their amendments, which I seek to retain in the Bill. Those of us who are interested in the subject will have read with care the arguments of my noble Friend Baroness Anelay, the noble Lord Ramsbotham, and Liberal Democrat, Labour and Cross-Bench Members in the other place in support of the arrangements that I wish to see retained in the Bill. The Minister will have studied them, but clearly he was not persuaded by them. However, I urge hon. Members to be persuaded by them, first, because those arrangements are right; secondly, because they will work better; and, thirdly, because, ironically, I suspect that they fit better with the ideas and philosophies of the Labour party. They would enable us to do better what the Attorney-General asked us to do: to improve the supervision of offenders, and better to protect victims. With those words, I urge the House to sustain the amendments introduced in the other place, which come under the heading of commissioning by probation boards and probation trusts.

Neil Gerrard: I want to speak to Lords amendment No. 6, on the key issue of who does the commissioning, and at what level commissioning takes place. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have been concerned to ensure that we do not destroy the good work done by the probation service and the probation boards. The key probation tasks should still be carried out locally, and should be determined at that level through local partnerships. In the early part of our debates on the Bill, much of the focus was on the issue of contestability and where that was taking us. Some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches and I were extremely concerned that there appeared to be an agenda of privatisation, which was driving the Bill.
	In addition, there is the idea of allowing much more commissioning that involves the voluntary sector. I want to make it clear—I have had to make it clear several times—that I do not oppose the involvement of the voluntary sector in probation work, where appropriate, but when people pray in aid bodies such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and the CBI we have to take it with a pinch of salt. The issue is not just one of convenience, which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about; a not-for-profit organisation is not above empire building, and I am sure that we have all seen plenty of examples of that. Organisations do not approach the issue as outsiders with a neutral, objective point of view. They have considerable vested interests in what happens—a financial interest if it is a private company, or empire building in the case of a voluntary organisation.
	I accept that, as the Minister said, some commissioning is best done at national or regional level. I see examples where that is clearly the case, such as hostel provision, which is performed at a national level now. If the hostel is to accommodate sex offenders, it should not be in the locality where the sex offenders come from and where they may bump into their victims in the street. I can see other examples where economies of scale suggest commissioning at national or regional level. Electronic tagging is an obvious case where that makes sense, as only one or two companies provide the service. We do not want 40 probation areas to end up with 40 different contracts.
	I entirely understand the Minister's argument. I accept what has been said in the past few days. In the letter that he knows was sent by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to me and other hon. Members, there has been a significant shift in the Government's approach. The Secretary of State writes that he sees commissioning at national level of some very specialist low volume, high cost services—hostels would be an example—and that the regional commissioners will take strategic overviews for their areas but will work in partnership with local authorities, the National Treatment Agency, learning and skills councils and so on.
	The most important thing that the Secretary of State said was about local provision. The lead provider, which in general will be the probation board or trust, certainly to start with, will act as both provider and commissioner and will concentrate on delivering the core offender management work. An equally important assurance that he gave in the letter, which my right hon. Friend the Minister repeated, was that provided its performance meets requirements, the lead provider in a probation area will be the probation trust. The lead provider will engage with other partners in the local strategic partnership to agree and implement local area agreements.

Neil Gerrard: I am coming to that. The letter is significant. It represents real movement from the Government's position some time ago. On Third Reading the then Home Secretary said of local area agreements and partnerships:
	"At the moment, one of those partners is the present probation board, which is both a commissioner and a provider. That will change and the commissioner element of that will go to the regional commissioner."—[ Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1023.]
	Clearly, on Third Reading it was intended that the local probation trust would not be a commissioner. I accept that there has been a significant shift, and that the present Secretary of State says that the local probation trust will be both provider and commissioner and will take the lead in local commissioning.
	My concern, which others raised earlier, is that that is not on the face of the Bill. Will the Minister think again? The Bill, with amendments, will obviously go back to the other place. Will he consider putting on the face of the Bill what has been said—that the lead provider and commissioner will be the local probation trust, and that the Secretary of State will, rightly, have the power to step in when what is done locally is not satisfactory. Poor quality service should not be allowed to continue, so the power for the Secretary of State to step in is needed. If that was in the Bill, someone could, if necessary, challenge that intervention, perhaps by judicial review.
	I very much welcome the Secretary of State's letter, because it gets us, if not to where we want to be—there are still elements of the Bill that cause me considerable concern—much closer to where we want to be than where we were, certainly on Second Reading. I am still worried about the bureaucracy that will be involved in the regional structures. I am still not clear about who makes the decisions on commissioning. The Bill originally said that it would be the Secretary of State, the amendment suggests probation trusts, and Ministers are saying that we will have to have both. In fact, there are three possibilities—the Secretary of State, the regional offender manager, or the local trust working at different levels, with the focus on the local, which is where it should be. The question is who decides what is commissioned at the regional level and at the local level. I want the emphasis to be with the local—with the probation trust—not with the regional offender manager.

Jeremy Browne: I do not intend to detain the House at great length, but I want to say a few words given that we are having the crucial part of our discussion right at the beginning.
	Nobody can doubt the important role played by probation services. There is a churning of people who regularly commit crimes against our constituents, and breaking that cycle is an absolutely crucial public policy objective of the Government and is in the interests of everybody in this country. I ought to say straight away that my party has no innate hostility to diversity of provision—far from it. The voluntary sector is currently involved in providing probationary services in some circumstances, but our objection to the Bill and the Government's intentions is that we do not wish to see legislation starting from a top-down, prescriptive assumption that is driven by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be responsible for commissioning services either directly or through his agents—the extraordinarily named regional offender managers. That gives us a sense of the tone and style of this arrangement; people with such overbearing and rather grand titles will impose their blueprint on those who serve at a more local level, which gets to the crux of our frustrations and our problem with the Government's position.
	As we are in the business of citing organisations in our support, the Probation Boards Association emphasised recently that crime is a local phenomenon with local causes and solutions. That is very much my experience. I represent a sizeable county town in the largely rural county of Somerset, and doubtless it has problems that are familiar to different communities throughout the country, but specific problems may not be replicated in quite the same way in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who represents a part of our capital city.
	We need probation services that are finely attuned to the individual needs and requirements of each community, and an approach driven from the top down by the Secretary of State with his regional enforcers seems unlikely to achieve that desired objective. We are looking, in microcosm, at the wider problem with the Government's attitude to public services. Perhaps it is a hangover from the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair—

Edward Garnier: The reality of the previous Prime Minister's Government was reflected by the fact that in the winter estimates, it became apparent that the headquarters of the National Offender Management Service was to receive £60 million to £80 million more than the entire front line of the probation service. We can see what the Government are in the business of doing. They are not just pulling power into the centre, but money with it.

Edward Garnier: The debate is less contentious that those that we have held so far. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the thrust of the arguments in the other place and those that were drawn to his predecessor's attention in Committee. As a Member of Parliament and having declared my interest as a recorder, I raised our concerns about the conflict of interest that might arise if a provider of a probation service had an interest in the recommendation that he or his organisation made to the sentencing court—be it the Crown court or a magistrates court. Clearly, some progress has been made, thanks to discussions in another place on conflict of interest.
	I should like the Minister to explain in greater detail the difference between Government amendment (a) and the Lords amendment. They are similar in intention but there are significant differences of detail. The Lords amendment states:
	"In carrying out their functions under this Part, and in particular in providing any assistance to the courts and to the Parole Board for England and Wales, providers of probation services and their officers shall ensure that such assistance does not give rise to any conflict of interest".
	Let us leave aside for the moment the argument about whether the Secretary of State or the provider of probation services is the appropriate person to fulfil the requirement. If I got into that, I would repeat the arguments about the top-down delivery of probation services and so on, and I do not want to do that. However, there is a difference between whoever keeps an eye on the risk of conflict "ensuring" that it does not occur and his—as is suggested in Government amendment (a)—having
	"regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid"
	conflict. That is a very long-winded way of saying, "we'll do our best." I prefer the Secretary of State to be placed under an obligation that he should ensure that there is, so far as practicable, no risk of a conflict. The issue might have to go back to the other place. If so, between now and then, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman consider the difference between "ensure" and
	"have regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable)"?
	If he can persuade himself that it would be better to insert "ensure" rather than the alternative, we would be completely ad idem, as opposed to just wishing to travel down the same path.
	The issue is not a matter of semantics; there is a real difference between the two proposals as drafted. I urge the Minister to do something about that if he can. The Government amendment in lieu refers to the necessity to
	"take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable) the risk that...the provision, in pursuance of the arrangements, of assistance to a court or to the Parole Board".
	That is a welcome paragraph. The amendment then refers to the risk that
	"the carrying out, in pursuance of the arrangements, of any other activities, might be adversely affected by any potential conflict between the provider's obligations in relation to those activities and the financial interests of the provider."
	That broadly reflects the thrust of the second half of the Lords amendment, so my concern there is of no account. Simply because I am happy to accept, for present purposes, the Government amendment in lieu—I am not going to take this matter to a dispute—I urge the Minister to take into the account some of the remarks that I have made on the wording, so that the obligation on the Secretary of State is that much firmer than it currently appears to be. If the Minister cannot offer me that help, could he please explain the Government's requirement that there should be that obvious difference, between "ensure" and the necessity to take reasonable steps?

Edward Garnier: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, may I clarify his position, so that I can respond more or less intelligently to it? As I understand it, the Government now apparently accept Lords amendment No. 14, which would remove clause 5(6), but disagree with Lords amendment No. 35, which removes the word "under" and adds the words,
	"or regulations under—
	( ) section 5(1) or ( 3)(c),"
	The Government wish to replace "5(1) or (3)(c)" with "5(3)(c)". The effect of the Government's case is that the statutory instrument will be subject to the negative, as opposed to the affirmative, procedure. Will the Minister remind the House which bit of his argument puts forward that case?

Edward Garnier: I think that I now understand what the Government are seeking to achieve. I am pleased that they are prepared to accept Lords amendment No. 14. I shall have a few things to say about Government amendment (a).
	First, may I establish what we are talking about? We are discussing a power given to the Secretary of State to establish probation trusts, the successor bodies to probation boards, which have been happily doing their work over the last few years following the Government's changes to the probation system in 2000.
	Clause 5 states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order...establish a probation trust...alter the name or purposes of a probation trust...dissolve a probation trust."
	The Secretary of State can require the probation trust to do all sorts of things, which are set out in the clause, in line with the purposes that he will decide for it. Interestingly enough, clause 5(3) states:
	"The purposes of a probation trust may include all or any of the following...the making or performance by the trust of contracts with another probation trust or any other person which provide for the carrying out by the trust of activities which contribute to the achievement of any purpose mentioned in section 2(1)...the making or performance by the trust of contracts with the Secretary of State for the carrying out by the trust of activities anywhere in the world"—
	well, I have heard of ambition, but that seems to take it to an extraterritorial dimension—
	"which...are to be carried out in connection with persons who are or have been subject to proceedings in service courts...correspond to activities which, if carried out in connection with persons charged with or convicted of offences, would contribute to the achievement of any purpose mentioned in section 2(1)...any other purpose specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
	So the Secretary of State wants us to give him a collection of powers, which he can then mess around with through secondary legislation.
	Clause 33, in part 4, deals with orders and regulations, so it ties directly back to clause 5. Clause 33(1) states:
	"Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	Subsection (2) states:
	"An order or regulations under this Act my make...different provision for different purposes or different areas"—
	unspecified and unseen—
	"(b) incidental, supplemental, consequential, saving or transitional provision."
	So, under clause 33(2), the Secretary of State will be given huge powers to alter the legislation and the arrangements made between himself and probation providers. No doubt all this will be divvied up by the regional offender manager, as the lead provider or commissioner.
	As there will be lots of probation trusts and as the Secretary of State no doubt sees himself making lots of provisions,
	"incidental, supplemental, consequential, saving or transitional",
	he would find it rather more convenient for that to be done under the negative, as opposed to the affirmative, procedure. I am sorry, but I am not here for the convenience of the Government. Parliament is not here for the convenience of the Government. The Government are here for the convenience of the people and the people's representatives in the Chamber, elected by electors. If it is convenient for the Minister to require the Secretary of State to push all that through using the negative, as opposed to the affirmative, procedure, I am afraid that he does not carry me with him.
	I wish to apply such negative proceedings as I can to Government amendment (a), so I might ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow me to test the opinion of the House on Government amendment (a), even if I am delighted that the Government accede to Lords amendment No. 14. It is highly important that Parliament, even by the very tips of its fingers, maintains some purchase on the Executive; otherwise, the Executive will just run away with themselves by using secondary legislation to change laws, particularly laws that affect the criminal justice system. I really do think that from time to time, the Government ought to condescend to allow Parliament to hold them to account.

Edward Garnier: Conversely, does the Minister not accept that if it is an uncontroversial matter but is none the less to be dealt with under the affirmative procedure, the House will not delay it. It could appear on the Order Paper in such a way that it does not upset the business managers—we would not want to do that, would we?

David Hanson: I beg to move, that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Gordon Marsden: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the issues arising from the proposed transfer of Crown post offices to WH Smith. Several colleagues and I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs on the subject. The issues arise from the fact that the Post Office has reached a franchise agreement with WH Smith; it is proposed that from September this year about 70 Crown post offices be closed, and their services provided by WH Smith stores nearby. There have already been trials involving six Crown post offices.
	The issues are inevitably difficult and controversial for local communities, and there has been a lot of concern and disquiet about the way in which the process has been managed. In Blackpool, for example, there has been much concern about the fact that the Abingdon street post office, which has been a central feature of Blackpool for nearly 60 years, and which is a listed building, will no longer provide its services. There are broader issues to do with the abandonment of a prime town centre site, and the transfer of services to a less well known one, and there are concerns about the position of staff, which the Communication Workers Union and others have already raised. However, I want to focus on the proposals' implications for access for people with disabilities or mobility difficulties, and for people who have children and use buggies or other things of that nature.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and I have met representatives from WH Smith and post office staff in Blackpool on several occasions, and we have visited the proposed site. There is real concern, and it is shared by a number of other hon. Members; as I have said, we set out those concerns in a letter that the Minister received earlier this week. The changes will cause further pressures, too. A 20 per cent. reduction in counter size is proposed in Blackpool, which will cause difficulties. In addition, a number of the WH Smith stores that are part of the franchise proposals have not included the provision of adequate access for disabled customers in their plans. In Blackpool, the post office counters will be in the basement of the WH Smith Bank Hey street store, but post office and WH Smith staff agree that the lift is likely to be too small for many wheelchair users.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform last week a similar issue in respect of the WH Smith branch in Brighton in Churchill square, where the facilities are also located in the basement and although there is an escalator facility, it goes down only and not up.
	Many vulnerable groups, including older and disabled customers, use the existing post office facilities. They carry out everyday tasks there. Often the Crown offices provide a hub for personal finance and benefit collection. In Blackpool, the Abingdon street post office, to which I have already referred, borders on a well known indoor market. It is opposite the famous Winter Gardens conference centre and the town centre church. The proposed replacement at Bank Hey street is much further away and is in no sense part of the centre of the town. I believe that the franchise agreement could have a negative impact on many of the consumer groups that I have mentioned if the issues of access are not properly addressed by the Post Office and by WH Smith before any transfer of services takes place.
	I shall quote for the Minister comments that I have received in the past couple of days. One is from the director of Age Concern in Blackpool, Ruth Lambert, who says:
	"I am totally at a loss as to why the Post Office has failed to take its elderly customers into consideration in this move. The WH Smith store is in a basement. There is a small lift that cannot hold more than one wheelchair at a time. What does this mean for people who need carers or for large groups of customers who have mobility problems?"
	She goes on to make a point that might not be immediately apparent:
	"The new site is much closer to the sea and therefore the wind can be a real challenge to elderly people. WH Smith is also a long walk from the nearest bus stop and this will be a big challenge to any person, elderly or not, who suffers with limited mobility."
	That view is echoed in the letter that Blackpool council sent to the Post Office, protesting at the proposed relocation, in which it said that the relocation to the basement of WH Smith is
	"wholly unsuitable for reasons of accessibility for disabled and elderly people, reduced floor space on what is currently available, and general potential quality of service compared to the Abingdon street facility."
	About 22 per cent. of the adult population of the UK are classed as disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—that is, just under 10 million adults. It is not just customers with mobility problems who may be affected by the changes. Customers who are blind, partially sighted or deaf will also face challenges. The Post Office has very good provision of induction loops for hearing aids, as well as visual indicators for deaf customers, but no guarantees have been given so far that that will be the case for the post office counters in the WH Smith stores. I have been in conversation with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and they have both expressed their concerns.
	The Post Office also has a varying—at least by region—but fairly solid track record of ensuring fair and equal access for blind customers. With the introduction of chip and pin services last year, all stores including WH Smith now operate that system. RNIB advised the Post Office on the accessibility of chip and pin pads, and the Post Office consulted RNIB, but RNIB's concern is that WH Smith has not so far consulted and may not consult on any future changes to chip and pin to accommodate blind and partially sighted people.
	That inevitably raises the issue of staff experience in these areas. There has already been significant controversy about the fact that because the sum that will be paid to the new WH Smith staff is considerably less per hour than that paid to current Post Office employees, the likelihood is that the vast majority of the staff in the proposed new branches will be new staff. My local newspaper, the Blackpool  Gazette, today reveals that
	"The stationery giant"—
	that is, WH Smith—
	"has advertised sales assistant posts at its Bank Hey Street store. . .
	The wage offered is 12p above the national minimum wage at £5.65 per hour."
	That is reckoned to be just under half of what current workers are paid at Abingdon street. I am not asking the Minister to comment on whether that is a good and acceptable wage for the service that is proposed, but it is fairly obvious that the vast majority of Crown post office staff, certainly in the case of Blackpool, are unlikely to transfer in those circumstances, and there will therefore be a big issue as regards new staff. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and I have pressed WH Smith and the Post Office on the training facilities available for that purpose in the limited time span for the transfer, we have not received very satisfactory answers.
	Blackpool, in particular, has a high number of tourists and visitors during the peak holiday season, many of whom need and want to use post office services during their stay. As a result, the access problems of WH Smith stores in Blackpool, Carlisle, Ilford, Brighton and elsewhere, which already affect disabled, old and vulnerable customers, will be exacerbated during peak visitor times in seaside and coastal towns. That has moved other hon. Members to join me in expressing these concerns. I remind the Minister that among the other Crown post offices on the list for closure are Bournemouth, Canterbury, Folkestone and Great Yarmouth.
	The Government are the sole shareholder in Royal Mail, and the Post Office is therefore classed as a public authority. All such bodies are subject to the disability equality duty, or DED, which is meant to ensure that all public bodies pay due regard to the promotion of equality for disabled people in every area of their work. Forty-five thousand public bodies across the UK are covered by the DED, many of which should have produced and published a disability equality scheme, or DES, by 4 December 2006, including the Post Office. Generally, the DES is intended to promote a duty for equality of opportunity between disabled people and other citizens, to eliminate discrimination and harassment, to promote positive attitudes to disabled people, and to take into account any impairment. Specifically, the Post Office is required by regulation, as part of the DED, to produce and publish a DES that is supposed to be drawn up in consultation with disabled people who are Post Office stakeholders and include staff and customers.
	For these purposes, the franchise agreement is exactly the same as contracting out by a public body. The Post Office is contracting out its services to WH Smith, and WH Smith is therefore bound by the same conditions as the Post Office in relation to the DED. Regrettably, however, there are few signs so far that WH Smith is taking that responsibility seriously. Central to the DED in relation to the proposed transfer of service from the Post Office to WH Smith is the requirement on public authorities to conduct a full disability equality impact assessment when there are any proposed changes to service delivery. Transferring the products and services of the Post Office, a public authority, into the basement of another building, as is the case in Blackpool, will have a significant impact on service delivery. The DES should therefore state clearly how the Post Office will conduct an impact assessment in Blackpool and elsewhere. I ask the Minister urgently to ensure that that takes place not only in Blackpool but in the other locations that are earmarked for closure.
	The Disability Rights Commission, with which I have been in contact, is not aware of any up-to-date assessment that has been made in respect of the schemes for transfer. The DRC has the power to take legal action where public authorities fail to carry out their responsibilities under the DED, and those authorities may then be subject to judicial review by the DRC.
	Those are the potential legal implications, but my question is this: where is the proactive element in this transfer? Why have not the Post Office and WH Smith already had this proper consultation with stakeholders? That concern is shared by organisations representing older people. Gordon Lishman, the director general of Age Concern, has said:
	"Many older people consider their post office to be a lifeline...If a post office must be relocated within another business to avoid closure, the expertise and skills of staff must continue to be provided. The post office services must also be in an accessible position within the business; this is particularly important for older people who may have mobility problems."
	The senior policy officer at Help the Aged, Alan Burnett, said:
	"Help the Aged are concerned about these proposals and believe that the devil is in the detail. Older people must be consulted and the needs of the most vulnerable must be considered when making changes to the post office."
	It may be said that these are matters of detail between WH Smith and the Post Office and not, therefore, a direct responsibility of Ministers and officials. However, WH Smith and the Post Office have so far manifestly failed to address the issues proactively. To give one example, when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood originally spoke to local staff about the problem of a significant number of people who use wheelchairs not being able to get into the lift to the basement—it was generally agreed to be too small for motorised wheelchairs—one of them said, "Oh well, if they turn up like that, we'll just have to transfer them into smaller wheelchairs." I submit that that is not a hopeful sign in the course of the transfer of a culture of respect for people with problems of mobility and disability.
	In any case, broader policy issues are raised that are a matter for the Government, as sole shareholder in Royal Mail. This Government have placed strong emphasis on disability issues since 1997, and I am proud of their record in that respect. They have supported people with disabilities; introduced a range of policies protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of disability; helped more people with disabilities to find and stay in work; and supported those whose disabilities mean that they are unable to work. In April 2000, the Government established the Disability Rights Commission, and they implemented duties under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to improve disabled people's access to goods, services and facilities. Since 1999, service providers have had to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their services so that disabled people can use them. Since 2004, they have had to take reasonable steps to tackle physical features that continue to make it impossible, or unreasonably difficult, for disabled people to access a service. All of that is very good.
	I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment—not least because he has come to his new Department from the Cabinet Office where there was a strong, groundbreaking focus on social inclusion under the previous Government. The establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights should send out a strong message to disabled groups and others that the Government take equality seriously, but I am concerned that the fiasco of the franchise agreement could damage that track record.
	I believe that if we will the ends, we have to will the means. That means that the Government have to live up to their responsibilities as a shareholder, and more broadly, promote a non-discriminatory and non-excluding programme. The range of concerns that I and other hon. Members have, and the complaints and protests from throughout the country, show that the circumstances in Blackpool are not an isolated incident. The worst possible thing for any transfer of services between the Post Office and WH Smith would be if customers became fraught with real difficulties that led to a host of legal challenges on the grounds of non-implementation of the DDA.
	Therefore, I ask the Minister not to allow the Post Office and WH Smith to duck the issue any longer. I ask him to ensure that the Government look urgently at the situation in all the Crown post offices scheduled for transfer to WH Smith, and to do the assessment on access, which should already have taken place. I ask also that they consult and make whatever adjustments the letter and spirit of the DDA require, and that they do so properly and comprehensively, involving stakeholder groups in places where the changes are proposed, even if it means delays in the handover process.
	In the event of any transfer in Blackpool, I ask the Government to consider specifically providing extra lift provision and making other adjustments to render the problems that we have identified less acute.
	Whatever service changes take place, there should be no outsourcing or franchising of basic equality principles that might result in preventing or making difficult access and provision for the elderly, those who have disabilities or anyone with access or mobility problems.

Patrick McFadden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on securing this evening's debate. I know that he cares deeply about his constituents and wants to secure the best possible access for them to Post Office services. That was evident from his speech. As he said, he and other hon. Members have already written to me about the issue.
	I want to begin by setting out a few general points on Post Office Ltd's decision to enter into a franchise agreement with WH Smith, and then to try to tackle some of the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised about the Blackpool transfer, especially disability access, on which he focused.
	The future of the post office network is a subject of great relevance to all hon. Members, irrespective of whether we have a Crown post office in our constituencies. The Post Office is run on an arm's length basis and Ministers do not make day-to-day decisions about the location of individual post office branches. However, I emphasise that the Government share hon. Members' concerns about securing a sustainable future for the Post Office and ensuring reasonable access to Post Office services for the public.
	The decision by Post Office Ltd to enter into a commercial agreement with WH Smith has generated a great deal of interest and debate. It is not the first time that Post Office services have been shared with other retail space. Post offices already share space with retail networks such as the Co-op, Martin McColl and Spar. More than 95 per cent. of post offices in this country are run by private operators, often with a shared retail space.
	There are approximately 450 Crown post offices, and they lost a combined total of £70 million last year and some £50 million the year before that. The network is therefore undergoing change, partly as a result of wider changes to the way in which we go about our business. For example, many of us choose to pay bills by direct debit; nine out of 10 people approaching retirement choose to have pensions paid into a bank account; communications technologies have undergone a revolution in recent years, and some 4 million fewer people use post offices compared with only two years ago. Clearly, that is not sustainable, and the Government support Post Office Ltd's policy for reducing the losses. It includes maintaining a core network of Crown post offices and franchising branches when opportunities arise and when that would benefit future post office provision. We have welcomed the commercial deal between Post Office Ltd and WH Smith, which was announced on 19 April, because it will secure the retention of a main post office service in each of those areas. That point should not be lost in the debate about Crown branches.
	As my hon. Friend said, six pilot projects of such transfers were carried out before the current franchising arrangement was announced. My understanding is that the majority of customers in those pilots welcomed the pleasant environment and the customer service. They also welcomed the extended opening hours for the service. I understand that that factor will apply to the Blackpool transfer.
	In some cases, the franchising of a Crown post office has been portrayed as a closure. I accept that my hon. Friend did not intend to do that. However, there is an important difference—franchising is not closure. Without the sort of deal that we are considering, a question mark would have hung over the future many Crown post offices. The Post Office is seeking to create more certainty about the future, and in particular about how the main Post Office service will be provided in our town centres. The arrangement brings a level of certainty about the future of the 70 offices concerned.
	Let me turn to some of the specifics that my hon. Friend mentioned. He expressed concern about the quality of service under the new arrangement. This is an important issue and he is right to raise it, but it would not be right to conclude that franchising will automatically lead to a reduction in quality of service. We should remember that only about 3 per cent. of posts offices are Crown post offices, directly managed and staffed by Post Office Ltd employees. I am sure that none of us would suggest that the equally hard-working sub-postmasters and mistresses and their staff who work in the remaining 97 per cent. of the branches are providing an inferior service. Franchisees are bound by stringent contractual requirements to ensure that service standards remain at the same high level after transferring from direct management of Post Office Ltd. Staff will be trained by Post Office Ltd and expected to maintain the standards of service that the public have a right to expect.
	My hon. Friend concentrated on access for people with disabilities. He is right to stress that it is important. Royal Mail Group has been working to the spirit of existing disability legislation, is committed to its being complied with and has a strong track record in improving and promoting positive attitudes. Post Office Ltd is committed to ensuring that disability access remains a priority. My understanding is that the issue has featured in discussions between the Post Office and WH Smith. The two organisations are working together to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure effective reasonable adjustment to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. My understanding is that WH Smith has spent about £1.5 million on improving access in stores and new sites opened since 2003 to meet DDA regulations.
	My hon. Friend pointed out that the space identified in the Blackpool store is in the basement. The same is true of a number of franchised post offices, where the space identified will be either on the first floor or in basement space. Post Office Ltd has given an assurance that the location of all branches will comply with the 1995 Act and be accessible to all customers. Arrangements will be in place to assist customers with special access needs in branches such as Blackpool, where the post office counter is not on the ground floor. I accept that my hon. Friend spoke about his own constituency, that he has visited the proposed new location and that I have not, so I tread carefully. However, I understand that there is a lift to help customers with disabilities. My hon. Friend has expressed concern, tonight and in his letter, about the quality of the lift. I understand that WH Smith plans to refurbish and redecorate it and to carry out any reasonable improvements to assist further those customers with disabilities.
	I understand that there is more queuing space in the WH Smith office than in the current office. In the event of a customer being for some reason unable to use the lift or the stairs to access the serving positions, arrangements will be available to ensure that they can be served by Post Office-trained staff on the ground floor. As one would expect from an established and prominent high street retailer, WH Smith is fully aware of its responsibilities under the 1995 Act and will ensure that the branch remains fully accessible for customers, including those with mobility problems.
	My hon. Friend has made clear his continuing concerns tonight. I am sure that both Post Office Ltd and WH Smith will read his speech. Ultimately, it is in no one's interests for customers to be discouraged from conducting their business or from having a less favourable experience of the service in future.
	In conclusion, the Post Office has been deprived of much-needed investment over the years. The Government have put in some £2 billion since 1999 and we plan further investment in the future. The Post Office is now diversifying into providing foreign currency, fixed line telephone services and new products such as credit cards. Change is never easy and I appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment, reflected in his speech tonight, but franchising is neither new nor an enemy of Post Office services. In fact, it may be a crucial factor ensuring their survival.
	We value the social role of the Post Office, but we also accept that it operates in a competitive marketplace and that change means that it, too, will have to change in the future. I believe that we have set out a framework to create a stable network in the future, so that the Post Office can move forward with confidence and rise to the challenges ahead. I appreciate the difficulties at this time of change. I am sure that the Post Office will have heard my hon. Friend's points, but I hope that the arrangements—
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at  twenty-nine  minutes to Nine o'clock.